To Stop Gun Violence, Go to the Source

[Romulus]

from WashPost.com columnist Jabari Asim:

In between going to work and teaching my sons to duck and cover, I never paused to think about gun-control ordinances, and I doubt the predators who tormented our block did either. It was hard to get worked up about such laws, which clearly had little relevance where we lived. In one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in one of the nation's most dangerous cities, it was easier to buy a pistol than to purchase fresh produce.

I recall those days whenever lawyers and lobbyists get together to flap their gums about guns, which has happened fairly often of late."

*snip*

"All this debate tends to overshadow a distressing fact: it is not firearms that disproportionately harm black people; black people disproportionately harm black people. I can't help concluding that folks who really care about the health of besieged communities should concentrate on the shooters instead of the guns."

*snip*

(Quoting William Oliver, an associate professor of criminal justice at Indiana University and author of "The Violent Social World of Black Men."): "How will you deal with the anger that many young black men manifest, which transcends the availability or lack of availability of weapons? Any type of public policy based on guns will not substantially mitigate the fear, anger and hopelessness among African-American males."

That, more than profiteering gun makers, seems worth getting worked up about.

*end*

Maybe someone will "get it" before July 2004 if we hope to win the White House. The fact that the WashPost let this get published shows that there is still hope that someone in the Democratic Party will actualy address the American violence problem instead of posturing at photo-ops.

[MrBenchley]

1. The NAACP suit did just that...

"It does at least bring some attention to the fact that there are those in our society who benefit financially from the high rates of violence in the African-American community, and the NAACP should be applauded for that."

[Emoto]

5. Did just what?

The NAACP suit was simply another failed attempt to circumvent the will of the people expressed through the legislature by attempting to punish a highly regulated industry that operates within the law, for merely existing. It, like all of the other similar suits against gun makers are frivolous and without merit.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/jr_labbe/6390431.htm

[MrBenchley]

6. It went to the source

the corrupt gun industry...

[Emoto]

10. Unfounded assertion

You continually post that the gun industry is corrupt. Have you any proof?

The City of Boston dropped it's suit against gun makers after investigations proved that they were not irresponsible.

[MrBenchley]

15. Been there, done that

and you know it, too...

[iverglas]

2. kinda cuts both ways, don't it?

The author says:

Any type of public policy based on guns will not
substantially mitigate the fear, anger and hopelessness
among African-American males.

"Any type of public policy based on guns."

So where the author (unless it was you) says:

That <presumably: the fear, anger and hopelessness among African-American males>, more than profiteering gun makers, seems worth getting worked up about.

... I'd say:

That, more than specious claims about the benefits of widespread access to firearms and short-sighted, self-centred claims to entitlement to such access, seems worth getting worked up about.

Where a population enjoys high levels of welfare -- decent housing, economically and personally worthwhile employment, good schools, a healthy environment, all that good stuff -- levels of crime and violence will virtually certainly be lower than among a population with fewer of those good things.

That comparison of Canadian and USAmerican regions again:

"Income Inequality and Homicide Rates in Canada and the United States"
http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/psychology/dalywilson/iiahr2001.pdf
Google's cached html version

Previous studies have compared cases in which high income inequality and low average income go hand in hand, and although such studies have repeatedly found that income inequality is the better predictor of homicide rates, its greater causal impact is easily called into question by suggesting that both economic indices are imperfect proxies for a common overall welfare construct.

Me, I'd be objecting to the baseless and deceitful claim that adding a whole lot of firearms to all the bad stuff that a community already has, the stuff that makes it more vulnerable to crime and violence already, will solve the problem of crime and violence, or even not make the crime and violence worse. That's just obvious nonsense, and, because the results of such a policy are quite predictable and quite tragic to anyone who cares about the community in question, obviously vicious nonsense.

.

[MrBenchley]

7. Exactly so...

Great post.

[Romulus]

13. who's talking about "adding" anything?

Me, I'd be objecting to the baseless and deceitful claim that adding a whole lot of firearms to all the bad stuff that a community already has, the stuff that makes it more vulnerable to crime and violence already, will solve the problem of crime and violence, or even not make the crime and violence worse. That's just obvious nonsense, and, because the results of such a policy are quite predictable and quite tragic to anyone who cares about the community in question, obviously vicious nonsense.

The issue is whether or not elected leaders will address the issues you so thoughtfully raised, i.e. income inequality. No one is telling people that merely buying firearms will cure all the ills described in the article. No one is urging people to arm themselves against their own free will. What the author DOES say is that posturing for further gun control merelyt ignores the problem.

It's like giving a malaria victim some aspirin because she's running a fever, thinking that will solve things.

[jhfenton]

26. Overall welfare construct

Again, as in the other thread, I agree with your underlying premise that the problem is socioeconomic. I don't understand your conclusion, though, that the answer therefore is to pass more ineffective gun control laws. At best, gun controls laws are irrelevant to crime.

Improving the socioeconomic standing of our stricken communities is the answer, not taking away law-abiding citizens' means of self-defense.

[iverglas]

27. I'll just direct you

... to my reply in the other thread (I thought the creation of two threads on the same subject unnecessary in the first place).

And ...

"I don't understand your conclusion, though, that the answer therefore is to pass more ineffective gun control laws."

If you want to refer to a conclusion I have stated, kindly copy and paste it and put quotation marks around it.

I have never in my life stated the "conclusion" you characterize as mine in that passage, and I will simply not be misrepresented as having done so.

"At best, gun controls laws are irrelevant to crime."

A biiiig claim in so few words. I'll be waiting for substantiation.

In the meantime, I'll point something out that I've said in the past that may have been before your time, and relates to this claim of yours.

I'm not talking about "crime". I won't get bogged down in the word games, the subtle phrasing used to talk about firearms, and the provenance thereof, "used in crime", and blah blah. I'm talking about harm: injury and death resulting from firearm use.

I have not and likely will not make any claim that gun control "reduces crime". So I won't be needing any rebuttals of that straw claim.

My concern is reduction of the harm in question -- and of course I am always mindful of the justification that must exist for any violation of individual's rights and freedoms (although I am entirely uninterested in the 2nd amendment to the US constitution other than as a historical curiosity).

.

[jhfenton]

29. Conclusions, crime, and harm

If you want to refer to a conclusion I have stated, kindly copy and paste it and put quotation marks around it.

You're right. I am assuming that you support laws of the type in DC, since you are defending them. I'll leave you to state your own conclusions.

I'm not talking about "crime". I won't get bogged down in the word games, the subtle phrasing used to talk about firearms, and the provenance thereof, "used in crime", and blah blah. I'm talking about harm: injury and death resulting from firearm use.

Fine, we can talk about "harm." Other than the very rare non-criminal negligent discharge, the "harm" comes from "crime."

[gotin]

3. You have it wrong!

People kill other people only when they have guns! That’s why before the invention of the firearms there weren’t any killings and tyranny!
Everybody know this – guns have bad vibrations and control human minds! That’s why soldiers wear METAL helmets!

[StClone]

4. Threats

Keeping a gun handy to defend against an isolated threat is the wrong way to think about it. Behind that lone threat is a multitude in hopelessness and behind the gun is a maker looking for profit. "No limit" gun advocates wish not to deal with these details only their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which can not possibly accommodate them.

[MrBenchley]

8. Especially since that interpretation

is based on outright lies...

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CO Liberal]

9. A Lot of That Anger Comes Through Dispair

Dispair at being unable to get a good job because Republican businessmen have moved all the good jobs out of the big cities to the suburbs or to other countries to take advantage of cheap wages.

Want to eliminate the anger? Vote Democratic!!!

:kick:

[JayS]

11. "Vote Democratic"

I'll add something to that...

As most of you know, I am in Texas. This is a fairly conservative State but for most of its history has been solidly Democratic. In fact, an armed citizenry had to invite one Republican Governor to leave after he refused to vacate the office that Reconsruction had put him in...but I digress. So I can't place all the blame for the troubles in my State on Republicans as for many years it was the Democrats who were in the majority, as they were for most of my life. That the Republicans hold the majority, and this seems to be a growing majority, is still something that is bizarre to me. One tactic they use is to point out the fact that the Democrats had been in charge for all those years and it is time for someone new. It works. Since the State is so conservative anyway it is not much of a shift to go with either Party as both are conservative to varying extents. Both Parties know this and also know that they are safe in getting reelected because of the way the districts are drawn, hence the big fight going on over that issue now.

So the issue is not to just vote Democratic, it is to make sure that the Democrat who gets elected does not think your vote is automatic because of party affiliation. He/She will certainly not be compelled to do anything for you once in office as your vote is a given. That is what the Democratic Party assumed here for years and see what it led to. But they are waking up to that fact. :)

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gotin]

12. So then

we will be able to walk to our nice chemical and car plants, located conveniently in downtown? And technicians without high school diploma will produce high quality goods?
Most of the people who can’t find a good job don’t have the education to work one.

[CO Liberal]

14. And Many of the People Who Can't Find a Good Job.....

....have no good jobs in their area.

[gotin]

16. As an Immigrant

I can tell you that distance is not a problem. People come here from all over the world and find jobs and raise kids and educate them. Being jobless here mean that you are lazy, stupid or both. The only other excuse is if you are disabled or sick.

[CO Liberal]

17. Oh, I Get It

You got yours, and to hell with everyone else. Not very liberal thinking, IMHO........

[MrBenchley]

18. Amazing how two million Americans

suddenly became "lazy, stupid or both" when this unelected drunk put the economy in the toilet, isn't it?

[MrBenchley]

19. Amazing how two million Americans

suddenly became "lazy, stupid or both" when this unelected drunk put the economy in the toilet, isn't it?

[MrBenchley]

20. Amazing how two million Americans

suddenly became "lazy, stupid or both" when this unelected drunk put the economy in the toilet, isn't it?

[gotin]

21. I’ve stated it before – education is the answer.

I have mine because I spend 18 years studying, for the first time in my live this year I have only one job and I always learned something from my mistakes.
I’ve helped many people, I’m doing it now. But it’s always to people who are trying.
People make choices and have to live with them. If they choose to stay and wait somebody to bring them jobs, that’s OK with me. It’s their live, not mine.
So, what do you suggest to do?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Withergyld]

22. Another interesting quote from the article

"All this debate tends to overshadow a distressing fact: it is not firearms that disproportionately harm black people; black people disproportionately harm black people. I can't help concluding that folks who really care about the health of besieged communities should concentrate on the shooters instead of the guns."

I think that we as Democrats could be more effective if we worked more on the underlying socioeconomic problems then working toward more gun control.

[JayS]

23. "we as Democrats could be more effective..."

We used to be damned good at this. And I mean damned good. I'm thinking back to the good old days of LBJ now. It was always the Democrats that the public turned to when societal ills needed addressing. Somewhere along the line both Parties lost a lot of substance and replaced it with hype. It is time for a change.

[CO Liberal]

24. And The Majority Of The "Underlying Socioeconomic Problems".....

....can righly be blamed on Republicans.

Starting with Reagan.

[JayS]

25. I think the blame lays more on We The People. We became...

...complacent, willing to gripe but come election time we stayed home or just voted the same old fool back into office. I see a change of sorts coming in the way some of the old guard are finding their "office renewals" not looking so sure now and some sharp young upshots are getting more limelight. I'd be keeping my fingers crossed if I didn't have to type. :)

[jody]

28. Hear, Hear!

:thumbsup:

[DavidMS]

30. Its also the fault of Democartic Party Activists

for letting DINOS (we all know who) vote like Rethugs and get away with it. We need to be more agressive in helping them stick to the party line about jobs in the US not abroad and that corporations and the filthy rich paying their fair share.

Since guns are not the cause of crime, just a nice issue to get people exicted about, why spend so much time and effort on it as opposed to fixing the underlying social and economic problems that cause crime in the first place?

I think that we waste too much time on the issue of who can own what toy as opposed to what can we do to fix the socio econonomc problems that cause violence.

[jody]

31. I agree, see my comments on another thread

My thoughts on the issue

[Spoonman]

37. I Agree 100%

We have failed at stopping the flow of illegal drugs into this country, what would stop those same people from bringing in guns with those drugs.
We have to fix the root cause of the crime, not the tools of the trade.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.